Case Law Details
Satvinder Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Assessee submitted medical certificate justifying delay. Accordingly held that there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
Facts-
The assessee is an individual, filed the return income of Rs. 10,60,110/- on 30/11/2014. Assessment order dated 29/12/2016 has been passed against the assessee by making an addition of Rs. 54,82,927/-on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in support of claim of ‘duty on license fees’. Further addition of Rs.12 lacs has been made on the ground that, the assessee has not submitted confirmation in respect of unsecured loans. As against the assessment order dated 29/12/2016, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 10 days.
As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the Act if he satisfies that the appellant on sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. The assessee has produced medical certificate dated 08/12/2017 before the CIT(A) for condoning the delay in filing of Appeal which is for the period 25/01/2017 to 08/12/2017. But the CIT(A) observed that there is no iota of establishment which could establish the bonafide of the claim of the assessee for the period of delay from 08/02/2017 to 14/02/2017 (07days) backed by any evidence.
Conclusion-
Held that Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 has held Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words ‘sufficient cause’ under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal V. the Administrator, Howah Muni-capacity, AIR 1972 SC 749.”
Held that In the light of the above discussions, considering to adopt justice oriented approach and with an intention to render substantial justice, we find that, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal is preferred by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 against order dated 15/05/2017 passed under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals), 37, New Delhi.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. That the appellate order as passed is against law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the appeal for the reason that the same is delayed by ten days.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the medical certificate clearly certifying the illness of the appellant from 25.01.2017 to 08.02.2017.
4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that if the assessee is medically fit on 8th February 2017 as per the medical certificate, he had to travel a distance of about 300 kms i.e. from city named Khana in Punjab to his advocate at Delhi. After getting medically fit on 8th of February 2017, he travelled to Delhi on the 9th of February 2017 when the digital signatures were given to the appropriate authority. The signatures were received on 11th of February 2017 which was Saturday and the following day is the Sunday i.e. 12th of February 2017. The appeal was prepared on 13th of February 2017 and filed on 14th of February 2017.
5. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the explanation given for each day of delay in filing of appeal. The assessment order having been received on 3rd of January 2017 and appeal was filed on 14th of February 2017 i.e. the delay of 12 days. If the days when he was advice medical rest i.e. 15 days is excluded, the appeal was filed in the reality on the 27th day.
6. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be directed to condone the delay if in the filing of appeal in the manner be returned to the file of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
7. That the appellate order as passed is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed the return income of Rs. 10,60,110/- on 30/11/2014. Assessment order dated 29/12/2016 has been passed against the assessee by making an addition of Rs. 54,82,927/-on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence in support of claim of ‘duty on license fees’. Further addition of Rs.12 lacs has been made on the ground that, the assessee has not submitted confirmation in respect of unsecured loans. As against the assessment order dated 29/12/2016, the assessee has filed an appeal u/s 250 of CIT(A) with a delay of 10 days.
4. As per Section 249(2) of the Act appeal shall be presented within 30 days to the CIT(A) which can be condoned by the CIT(A) u/s 249(3) of the Act if he satisfies that the appellant on sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period. The assessee has produced medical certificate dated 08/12/2017 before the CIT(A) for condoning the delay in filing of Appeal which is for the period 25/01/2017 to 08/12/2017. But the CIT(A) observed that there is no iota of establishment which could establish the bonafide of the claim of the assessee for the period of delay from 08/02/2017 to 14/02/2017 (07days) backed by any evidence. The said approach of the CIT(A) is neither reasonable nor adopted liberal approach. In our view the CIT(A) ought have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merit.
5. How the power of condonation of delay is to be exercised, has been explained by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) as under:-
“(Pages 472 )” The Legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 51 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on de merits”. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that the court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
1. ” Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.”
3. “Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.”
6. Here we would also like to refer the finding of the Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222. The Apex Court held as under:-
“11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.
12. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words ‘sufficient cause’ under section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 and State of West Bengal V. the Administrator, Howah Muni-capacity, AIR 1972 SC 749.”
7. In the light of the above discussions, considering to adopt justice oriented approach and with an intention to render substantial justice, we find that, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal before the CIT(A) by the assessee. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the above cases cited and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd., Vs. JCIT, [2006] 287 ITR 555 (Mad). Therefore, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, we incline to remit the file to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Thus we allow the Grounds of Appeal No. 3.
8. Since the matter is remanded to CIT(A) to decide the issues involved in the other grounds, the Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 4 to 8 requires no adjudication by us.
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Author Bio
